From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:11:42 -0400 Archived: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:11:31 -0400 Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? Hi David; Stanton, Thank you both for your responses. My reply is once again combined into a single message to you both: >From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:43:39 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? >>From: J. Maynard Gelinas <j.maynard.gelinas.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Thu, 7 Oct 2010 18:38:57 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? <snip> >The point is again, with similar ecological niches, form follows >function. There are a limited number of optimal solutions for >survival in particular ecological niches. Another example, >predators often have forward-looking eyes (with good binocular >vision) while prey have their eyes off to the side to give them >a much wider field of view to look for predators. <snip> >Actually very little is known about pre-Cambrian life forms >since they were soft-bodied and didn't leave much fossil >evidence behind. But I think you miss the big picture with your >argument. There aren't a lot of geometrical symmetries to work >with: radial, spherical, and bilateral (or no symmetry, such as >sponges). All existed pre-Cambrian just as they do post- >Cambrian. I'm mostly talking about the Burgess Shale fossil findings from British Columbia. However, I should say that my experience with this field is no more than reading a good book by Stephen J. Gould on the subject some years ago. I am not a professional. >But ONLY bilateral symmetry results in streamlining and rapidly >moving life forms. Bilateral symmetry is also more energy >efficient for motion. Speed and energy efficiency both have >highly significant survival value, which is why they were >selected for. (Streamlining and energy efficiency is also why >nearly all our craft, from canoes to submarines and jet >airplanes are bilaterally symmetric--it is an optimal solution.) >Those are the primary reasons why all higher and more complex >life forms are bilateral symmetric, and it isn't going to matter >which star system they evolve in. Bilateral symmetry is going to >be king because of basic physics that is the same everywhere. Are you really right in these assertions? I honestly don't know. Some years back on UFO UpDates I made the mistake of playing 'image analyst' with a photo and news article that had been posted to the List and defended it as the real thing. Well, lo and behold, the pro image analysts here (I think Dr. Maccabee was one), chimed in and called it a bird. I learned a valuable lesson there: I stepped outside my field and expertise and as a result defended a bad conclusion. I'm trying to be careful and avoid making that mistake again. However, I'm not sure you're right in these assertions about evolutionary biology. But I wonder if computer simulation along the lines of an updated version of Richard Dawkin's old Biomorph code that shipped within book The Blind Watchmaker might answer some of these questions. I know that you are certain that you are right, but I am not. Unfortunately, I don't have a strong argument to counter your claims, so I'm not in a position to challenge them directly. This time I recognize that evolutionary biology is completely outside my field. But I will say that your argument does not resemble what several real biologists have said to me in the past. Though I admit they were drunk at the time and more concerned with munching hors d'oeuvres than debating the finer points of evo-bio. I'll think about it and dig. I might come back to this debate later after a conversation with a Ph.D biologist (it might take a few beers at the pub, but I think I can find someone to chat with about the issue unofficially. lol). Now on to my response to Mr. Friedman: >From: Stanton Friedman <fsphys.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 16:13:33 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Shostak's Search Shift? <snip> >I am glad you bought my books Crash At Corona (1997) and hope >your copy of the Top Secret/MAJIC was the 2nd Edition (2005). >However, much more to the point about my views is my 2008 >"Flying Saucers and Science":and Kathleen Marden's and my >"Captured! The Betty and Barney Hill UFO Experience (2007). Lol. Actually, I bought Top Secret/MAJIC as a first edition hardcover when it was initially published. So, nope - not the second ed. I'l check out Flying Saucers And Science" though. Thanks. I will say that my favorite book on the subject is Paul Hill's Unconventional Flying Objects, which I think treads the razor's edge between fact and speculation on the UFO subject beautifully. >There is a major difference between observing eclipses, >earthquakes, and solar storms.Mother nature produces them out >side the influence of any intelligence. Flying Saucers a small >subset of the UFO phenomena are controlled by intelligence. >Secondly the best tools for observing UFOs(whose behavior is not >under our control) are those operated by the military which >provide data that is born classified specifically Aerospace >Defense Command and aircraft and ship mounted radar and the eyes >of those witnesses .as well as analysis of recovered wreckage. BREAK-IN: One argument I would make _against_ and chasing unofficial military documents and anonymous testimony is how badly they have damaged the credibility of researchers. I mean, if what I've read in Dolan's Vol 2 '73 - '91 history is correct, Doty really screwed the community. And while it might be conspiracy theorist to assume he did so as disinformation at the behest of the intelligence community, it's hard not to at least wonder. His SERPO stuff makes me want to bang my head into the nearest wall. OTOH: FIOA requests and official archive digging did generate documents leading to such classics as Clear Intent, which documented UFOs buzzing missile silos and military installations over two decades ago. Another very good book and excellent research done by the author. >I don't talk about bi-pedal aliens. I do refer to observations of >clearly manufactured craft behaving in ways we can't duplicate >with the many flying vehicles produced by earthlings.If they >weren't manufactured on Earth, they are ET in origin. Doesn't >tell us where, when, why, how.. only not manufactured here. As >it happens the many reports of beings associated with physical >trace cases and abductions seem to indicate bi-pedal. That tells >us nothing about "creatures" out there. It doesn't tell us if >they are cyborgs, partly artificial. This I agree with. My sense of it is that biological species evolved on planets are likely not well suited to space. Organisms would have to build big pressurized tin cans and simulate gravity to come close to creating a comparable environment they're suited to. I'm not convinced it's worth the energy expenditure, assuming that alien biotechnology emerges along similar timespans as space faring technology - as it has with human development. Rather than changing the environment to suit the travelers (build space ships) why not change biology to suit the environment (live in space)? That's a speculative argument that follows from Singularity promoters like Ray Kurzweil. >I have no idea why you bring up remote viewing , William Cooper >or Bob Lazar, Courtney Brown etc ad nauseum. I have done more >than anybody else to expose Lazar as a fraud having talked to 5 >offices at MIT, his high school, LANL,Cal Tech, Bill Duxler his >supposed prof at Cal Tech who actually worked at Pierce JC and >did have Bob in his class. I noted problems with his espousal >of Element 115. I have also written about fraudulent Cooper. Only because the claims of Doty, Cooper, Lear, and Lazar are still widely circulated. I did so as an example, not to say that you argue _in_support_ of their claims. The Element 115 claim is just plain bogus. Though I suppose he couldn't have known in the late '80s that it would be synthesized so soon and thus blow his claims sky high. >Why in the world do you claim"Known forgeries for initial >batches of MJ-12?". Where are your arguments and refutation of >my dismember- ment of the claims of forgeries about the CT, >EBD, and TF memos? or my review of "Case MJ-12"? I have made >quite clear that there are phony documents just as most isotopes >aren't fissionable, and most chemicals won't cure any disease, >and most people aren't over 7' tall. The real ones matter, not >the phonies.The question isn't what are UFOs, but are any of ET >origin. The answer is yes.. Well, I think that even on UFO UpDates you might find some diversity of opinion on the validity of the Eisenhower Briefing Document, Cutler Twining Memo, and the Truman Forestal memo. I've certainly read that there are plenty of UFO researchers who aren't as certain as you, and even more skeptics who simply debunk them outright. I'm not convinced. >I believe I have also done more than anybody else to show that >numerous so called MJ-12 documents are frauds. I espouse 3 and >possibly SOM 1.01 . I can find no good reason for you or any >body else to talk of initial ones as frauds. Can you? No, but there are sources on the internet that claim so. For example: http://www.hyper.net/ufo/docs.html "However, many other UFO researchers (Brad Sparks, Robert Hastings, Kevin Randle, Jan Aldrich, Jerome Clark etc) consider the MJ12 documents fraudulent. To them, the only remaining question is whether MJ12 docs were created by USAF/OSI as part of a disinformation campaign, or inside the UFO community to catalyze disclosure and/or propel specific people into the spotlight. New MJ12 revelations by Brad Sparks (MUFON 2007 conference). Robert Hastings' 2009 series: Operation Bird Droppings: The MJ12 Saga continues, Update 1, Update 2" Some of these folks are on-List, so if they're opinions have been misrepresented I assume they'll chime in. I'm simply quoting from the source. Again, thank you very much for your detailed reply. Also, thanks to Jerome Clark, who also replied. I didn't respond to that as I mostly agree with his argument and didn't want to take up additional list space on minutia. Take care, -M Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp